"Reckless, irresponsible": Kansas teacher's "gay is same as murder" Facebook rant

[Nova]

Thanks. I understand what you're saying. I do disagree.

Disagree on what basis? Your ability to read ancient Hebrew (though even that is no guarantee of accuracy, since the OT was passed down orally for generations before it was written)?

I've give you a noted authority for my position. Your disagreement seems based on nothing except the fact that you don't like the evidence.

 

[Nova]

snipped

No, wearing pants and kilts isn't like murder, but to fully address this is far beyond the thread topic or this forum. (plus I don't have much time this evening to post and won't in the next few days) Suffice it to say, it relates to the difference between the Law and OT, Jesus, the NT, and grace.

How convenient!

 

[Nova]

And those expressing their faith, according to some of the posts here are:

Bigoted
Homophobic
Lazy
Idiotic
Stupid
Ignorant
Cruel
Hateful
Unempathic, etc.

From our side, if we say, from the perspective of our deeply held faith in God and not from ill-intent, that we believe homosexuality is a sin, some feel the need to immediately label us bigoted, homophobic, and hateful to diminish, dismiss, and hopefully silence our views. Those three labels are too important and too caustic to be thrown around rampantly, so much so that they begin to lose their meaning. Many don't even know the origin or initial meaning of the word homophobic, because it's come to mean anyone who doesn't fully support homosexuality as a lifestyle.

It's like the word rape. I've been raped twice by two different men, and during my years working with at-risk and adjudicated youth, I've worked with both perpetrators and victims. But people throw that word around like it's nothing, ie in reference to overpaying for something. Really??

My point is words have power. I'm so far from perfect and I can get riled up too, but I do try to think before each post, not only about what I want to say, but how to effectively say it. And if I'm too emotional to post at that moment, I try to walk away.

There actually are people out there who genuinely hate LGBTs and mean them harm. I haven't seen any on this board. Some feel the same toward Christians or African Americans, etc. Thankfully, I think there are very few who feel this way toward anyone.

Charlie has a point, IMO.

That you are willing to believe something without any evidence is entirely your business. But when you impose that belief on me (with your vote or opposition to my having equal civil rights), then I have the right to call "faith" what it is: willful blindness in the absence of evidence.

There is no more evidence that the Bible is "God's word" than there is that the guy on the street with a tinfoil hat is actually receiving messages from Mars. I'm sorry if some find that offensive, but it's the truth.

And while we're at it, neither you nor Charlie have given me any justification for writing some Biblical precepts into civil law while conveniently ignoring all the prohibitions you don't care to follow. Until you do, I have every right to assume your beliefs are based in bigotry and cruelty. What else would I conclude?

That such beliefs are also intellectually lazy is self-evident.

 

[Nova]

I have wondered about the financial ramifications for companies of same sex benefits, (not that it impacts my position on the issue.). Considering the highest estimates I've seen are 10% of the population identifies as LGBT, and of that number not all are in committed relationships, I'm not sure how big a hit that'd be. Of course, I support capitalism and the free market, so I don't believe companies should be required to provide any benefits. I know I've chosen to decline a job offer due to the lack of benefits before. Companies are welcome to compete for me with different packages. (hmmm-that sounds um different than intended, lol!)

I agree - why's the state involved with marriage anyway? I disagree with Ron Paul on many things, but as I said before, I agree with his statement that marriage is a function of the church, not government.

That's easy to say until your husband dies and his family shows up to take everything out of your house. At that point you will very much want the government's recognition of your marriage and your right to own whatever was accumulated during your marrage.

As for 10% of the population being gay, that figure was always based on a misreading of Kinsey's research. I know the community still uses that figure at times, but the truth is probably about half that.

 

[Nova]

That is the case here even if the tax breaks are not as great as one may think....

No? I just wrote a check for $4,000 for additional taxes because my marriage isn't recognized by the federal government, so I can't file a joint federal return with my husband.

When my husband was covered by my insurance, I had to pay taxes on that benefit because though he is my legal spouse according to California, he is not according to Washington.

Over the past 35 years, the lack of government recognition of our union has cost us tens of thousands of dollars.

And all because some people think an old book is more important than fairness and equality.

 

[Nova]

...I think your correct in the fact they have been receiptive towards the domestic partner insurance benefits , except the exact same year they started issuing those benefits is the exact same time frame that the issue of gay marriage hit MSM . Larger companies have seen cost of insurance coverage increase as every domestic partner(gay or straight) is elligable for coverage under the same guide line gay or not . So as far as large companies go it would save tons not to have to have that option of coverage. However the coverage prohibits the goverment from collecting on the dual incomes of 2 working partners....

Where are you getting this stuff? Once again you offer no link to support your assertions. Large companies were offering domestic partner benefits for at least a decade before gay marriage was legal anywhere or even much discussed.

Covering domestic partners doesn't necessarily cost any more than covering husbands and wives. And why shouldn't a gay worker have the same benefit as the worker doing the same job in the next cubicle?

As other posters have pointed out, you and Charlie seem incapable of seeing this issue from any point of view but the most narrow religious perspective.

You do realize that these are real issues at my house, yes? And not just a theoretical matter?

 

[Charlie09]

That you are willing to believe something without any evidence is entirely your business. But when you impose that belief on me (with your vote or opposition to my having equal civil rights), then I have the right to call "faith" what it is: willful blindness in the absence of evidence.

There is no more evidence that the Bible is "God's word" than there is that the guy on the street with a tinfoil hat is actually receiving messages from Mars. I'm sorry if some find that offensive, but it's the truth.

And while we're at it, neither you nor Charlie have given me any justification for writing some Biblical precepts into civil law while conveniently ignoring all the prohibitions you don't care to follow. Until you do, I have every right to assume your beliefs are based in bigotry and cruelty. What else would I conclude?

That such beliefs are also intellectually lazy is self-evident.

As other posters have pointed out, you and Charlie seem incapable of seeing this issue from any point of view but the most narrow religious perspective.

You do realize that these are real issues at my house, yes? And not just a theoretical matter?

Whew, well now we know who it's really all about. :floorlaugh:

 

[Nova]

Whew, well now we know who it's really all about. :floorlaugh:

Jesus must be SO proud of you.

 

[Charlie09]

Jesus must be SO proud of you.

So...when is it ok to believe in a personal Jesus again?

 

[Nova]

So...when is it ok to believe in a personal Jesus again?

It's always okay. It's pretending you speak for Jesus that is overreaching.

And around we go again...

 

[Charlie09]

It's always okay. It's pretending you speak for Jesus that is overreaching.

And around we go again...

Ah ,it would appear that it is ok for some people to take their personal sex lives seriously, and want the other 95% of the population change the definition of marriage to suit their whim, but not the whim of another small minority that wants group marriage. Apparently, it's not ok to have personal faith beliefs without having those beliefs mocked until it's convenient to use those beliefs against them.

The bullying tactics don't work with me, neither does the baiting - It's not about any poster's personal life - if it's about the freedom to speech and freedom OF religion.

 

[Soulmagent]

Where are you getting this stuff? Once again you offer no link to support your assertions. Large companies were offering domestic partner benefits for at least a decade before gay marriage was legal anywhere or even much discussed.

Covering domestic partners doesn't necessarily cost any more than covering husbands and wives. And why shouldn't a gay worker have the same benefit as the worker doing the same job in the next cubicle?

As other posters have pointed out, you and Charlie seem incapable of seeing this issue from any point of view but the most narrow religious perspective.

You do realize that these are real issues at my house, yes? And not just a theoretical matter?

Your assuming my prespective is religious. I have not posted one thing
about my religious beliefs.


I dont appreciate you trying to make it look like I am in some way prejudice agaisnt gay marriage ,I am not . It doesnt mean I think anyone should have any say over anothers religous beliefs or limit their freedoms.

I never said the goverment should not veiw your marriage the same as they veiw mine. The issue has alway been the freedom of this teacher to say what he feels are his veiws under his rights.

I am sorry if you feel I have not considered issues in your home as real . I assure you that is not the case ,while I dont wear you shoes and it would be impossible for me to know every sufferage I can assure you I understand some.

One of my friends grandmother is always telling him he is going to hell. She isnt joking and believes this . She loves him but her faith makes her believe this and she is to blind to see it hurts him. His mother is always posting bible quotes to his facebook. I think her belief is wrong and her actions are horrid.

I see how their opinion has affected him and I see how what they say is hurtful and harrassing and that is from his family. I do believe they are overstepping their bounds and I can see where people do abuse their freedom of religion. I just do not believe in the case of this teacher . I dont agree with him.

I will find the correct or more suitable thread for the other topic and post your links for you at a later date, as I said I havent researched it in a while but I will show you "where the hell I got that crap.'' And I do love domestic partner insurance is offered. You seem to get the idea I disagree with it ,that might be my fault for an unclear post.

 

[Seek&Find]

The few-ish number of scriptures referring to homosexuality (attributed with much debate amongst biblical scholars) puts a cap on the amount of information to plug through. You and Nova (and others) have done a decent job of it.

I appreciate how you describe the interface between the "message" and how the Holy Spirit provides conviction and illumination of the message.

Therein lies the rift. Without the Holy Spirit providing "correct" understanding, this teacher's post on Facebook is inappropriate, injurious and humiliating for a significant portion of humankind. I cringed for the people targeted by his careless words. I did not find his post a brave testament to his faith any more than a suicide bomber crying the name of their god before they pull the pin. It is unbelievably entitled and arrogant, I guess, unless you have the Holy Spirit within you to illuminate the appropriate meaning. Without the Holy Spirit illumining the correct meaning of his words, this teacher sounded like just another bigot on a roll. What is alarming so many is his position of authority and responsibility with CHILDREN, and the actual, real-time damage his words have and are causing real children right now. This is a legitimate perception, however unillumined by the Holy Spirit.

Does it help to know these things, as a Christian? Could knowing this make any difference in how you bring your sacred teachings to others?

This teacher's post may have been a protestation of his faith, but that's not all it was. The people affected by his words also have a legitimate say, especially the parents of the children who respect him or seek his approval. This teacher's post did nothing to impact my understanding except perhaps to validate my distaste for that brand of rhetoric.

It's our job, as Christians, when called to do so, to speak the truth in love, to share the Gospel, to provide a defense for our faith. The teacher did all of that. As stated, it's the Holy Spirit's job to take it from there. He very well could have used the teacher's post to do that for some, or to encourage his Christian Facebook friends. Do you think he just shouldn't speak unless he absolutely knows everyone who could possibly hear it will be in a place to receive it and understand it? Perhaps the message wasn't intended for you specifically? The idea that he cannot speak of his faith as some might be offended is alarming. It's called freedom of expression for a reason.

How exactly have his words damaged real children? (Some of us have already stated our opinion that a teacher should not have his or her students as Facebook friends. There are a number of reasons for that. I wonder what the parents were thinking when they allowed that. I never would.)

Have you considered that your broad brush strokes re: social conservatives might be seen as inappropriate, injurious, and humiliating? Particularly because some posters here have stated both support for the teacher's right to say what he did, their perception that he had no ill-intent, and yet their own disagreement with his beliefs, but it appears they got lumped in with us social conservatives simply because they had a different take on the teacher's full message and its intent.

Additionally, Obama's statement intermingling his beliefs with his announcement could be seen as inappropriate, injurious, and humiliating to some. Yet I don't see anyone addressing the statement he made, which precipitated the teacher's post, or his right to make it in the way he did.

I hear what you're saying, appreciate your right to say it, and appreciate you sharing your POV, but disagree with it.

 

[kentuckybound]

This thread has given me a headache lol

 

[Seek&Find]

There's no question that the teacher has a right to post the remarks he posted. The issue is whether he should continue to teach (potentially gay) children given that he is such a petty and hateful person. I say no, but whether he can actually be fired depends on the laws and rules of the respective school district.

How is prohibiting gay marriage anything but the "establishment of religion" prohibited by the Constitution?

Oy. Petty and hateful person. From this one post. That many read differently than you do.

I think this conversation has degenerated. Seems to me there was a golden window of opportunity for a brief moment for us to share in a healthy discussion while respectfully acknowledging differences. It appears to have closed. Glad they were some well thought out posts and attempts to be civil with each other on this thread. I respect you, Nova, but disagree with you.

Because it's not Congress making a law establishing religion. Many of our laws are based on moral standards. That does not mean they are establishing religion. We often address what's right and wrong. In fact, some posters have said it's wrong for this teacher to post what he did. That's a moral judgement.

And, upholding how marriage has always been defined is not a strictly religious position. For example, we do have the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, a liberal Democrat, so the rightwing thing mentioned before does not hold water. You've already acknowledged that some who disagree with homosexuality are irreligious. In fact, some have no issue with homosexuality, but do not support gay marriage. And, changing the definition of marriage could easily be seen as impinging the free expression of religion and violating existing law.

 

[Seek&Find]

Disagree on what basis? Your ability to read ancient Hebrew (though even that is no guarantee of accuracy, since the OT was passed down orally for generations before it was written)?

I've give you a noted authority for my position. Your disagreement seems based on nothing except the fact that you don't like the evidence.

Interesting, in that you already admitted you cannot read the ancient languages the Bible was written in. One of the great things about this country is we can readily access the Bible. That's not true in many countries. In fact, we have many resources at our disposal, including commentaries, topical bibles, Concordances, linguistic dictionaries, scholarly dissertation, different translations to cross compare, as well as Bible scholars, theologians, ministers, priests, pastors, etc. I love God, value His Word, and work to study and understand it (though I need to do more of that). I haven't based my beliefs on any one resource. I could challenge the one authority you've chosen, but why? Frankly, I could go down that road with you to expand on the words used in the Bible, but I think it'd get into some pretty uncomfortable conversations regarding homosexual acts in parsing the words, which would be inappropriate for this forum, potentially hurtful and ultimately would not serve a purpose. No need for us to get down to the level of parsing what the definition of "is" is in addressing this teacher's post. It is interesting, IMO, that you seem to think you know what Christians know, think, and believe better than they do. :shrug: I have no desire to fight with you, we just disagree, and that's ok.

 

[Seek&Find]

How convenient!

:doh: Really? You think women in pants has a lot to do with the teacher's post? My sense is you want a much bigger religious discussion than this thread or forum encompass. And, if I lived in your area, I'd be happy to meet with you over coffee (I'd have a coke - coffee tastes gross! Lol) regularly to enjoy your company and a vigorous debate. And we could discuss levitical law, the old covenant, the new covenant, etc.

 

[Seek&Find]

That you are willing to believe something without any evidence is entirely your business. But when you impose that belief on me (with your vote or opposition to my having equal civil rights), then I have the right to call "faith" what it is: willful blindness in the absence of evidence.

There is no more evidence that the Bible is "God's word" than there is that the guy on the street with a tinfoil hat is actually receiving messages from Mars. I'm sorry if some find that offensive, but it's the truth.

And while we're at it, neither you nor Charlie have given me any justification for writing some Biblical precepts into civil law while conveniently ignoring all the prohibitions you don't care to follow. Until you do, I have every right to assume your beliefs are based in bigotry and cruelty. What else would I conclude?

That such beliefs are also intellectually lazy is self-evident.

It's not without evidence. It's with evidence you reject, which is your choice.

In fact, changing the definition of marriage, as recognized by the law and the church, would be more you imposing your beliefs on me.

So, now we want to debate where rights come from, and what constitutes a civil right? Sounds like a political discussion to me...?

There is both historical textual and archeological evidence as well as fulfilled prophecies to indicate the Bible as God's Word. Its up to each to evaluate it and decide for themselves.

You seem to solely focus on Leviticus. Now you're accusing me of not caring to follow parts of a text I hold to be Holy? With no evidence that I reject any of it, or ignore parts of it? Just because you don't apparently know about Jesus's fulfillment of the Law, and the difference between the Old Covenant and the New?

Really? Because I'm not going to assume your opposing views are based on bigotry, cruelty, or ill-intent. Even when you choose to mock faith or insult those who believe.

 

[Seek&Find]

That's easy to say until your husband dies and his family shows up to take everything out of your house. At that point you will very much want the government's recognition of your marriage and your right to own whatever was accumulated during your marrage.

As for 10% of the population being gay, that figure was always based on a misreading of Kinsey's research. I know the community still uses that figure at times, but the truth is probably about half that.

If someone chooses to ignore their option to create a will, (or a living will, or a general or medical POA) that's their choice. That can create problems for married couples (especially in the case of remarriage), unmarried couples, and same sex couples. Not to mention those not in a committed relationship with multiple children! How is this related to the teacher's post, again??

Yes, that why I said the highest estimate I'd seen. I agree. It's likely lower.

 

[wfgodot]

This thread has given me a headache lol

Yes, 2 a.m. found me wandering through the house, wide, staring eyes fixed on a point in the mid-distance, lol.